A New Horrifying High Our Leaders Will Ignore

News that Antarctica just reached new horrifyingly high temperatures, forerunner of the deluge to come, once more reinforces the perilous state our world is in. Despite that, it seems likely that the Trudeau government will approve the massive tarsands project known as the Teck mine, which I posted about the other day.

Indeed, the most startling fact about the development is that it will add to our-already massive greenhouse gas emissions which, despite the pious rhetoric of the Trudeau government, means our country, with a mere 0.5% of the planet’s population, will use up one-third of the world's remaining carbon budget.

A new petition opposing the development is available to sign at the David Suzuki Foundation.

Still not sure that this development flies in the face of ecological sanity? Perhaps the following thoughtful missives from the Toronto Star will help convince you:

I oppose the expansion of tar sands production and call on Liberal cabinet ministers to reject the Teck Frontier mine.

The Trudeau cabinet’s decision is due at the end of February. It’s the first real climate test for this government.

I am one of the two thirds of voters who voted for increased climate action in last year’s federal election. We have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe and must act quickly to cut carbon emissions.

The Frontier mine is incompatible with our climate targets. It will produce about four million tonnes of carbon emissions per year.

It would result in significant adverse effects on Indigenous rights and cause irreversible environmental damage. The mine would result in a loss of habitat for local species including wood bison and whooping cranes.

And it will never be financially viable due to its reliance on unrealistically high oil prices.

Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, Toronto

Can any of us really afford to wait another 30 years for Teck Resources to become carbon neutral? Canada’s federal cabinet ministers are deciding whether to reject or approve the Teck Frontier Mine, slated to be developed 110 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alta. — a mine that would become Canada’s largest tar sands project.

This mine would produce 260,000 barrels of oil per day. It would cover 290 square kilometres, almost the combined area of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, and have a lifespan of 41 years. During those years, this mega-mine would add 4 million tonnes of CO2 per year to Canada’s emissions, singlehandedly guaranteeing we will not meet our Paris Accord targets.

A federal-provincial joint review panel found that the mine would not only cause permanent and irreversible damage to our environment, but it would also cause “significant adverse effects” on the rights, land use and culture of local Indigenous peoples.

So I ask again: Can Canada, my grandchildren and your grandchildren afford to wait 30 years for Teck to become carbon neutral? The answer from the future is a resounding and imploring cry of “no!”

Patricia Smith, Barrie

As author of “Hawk,” a novel about the oil sands being used in many Canadian schools, I want to raise awareness about the Teck Frontier mine proposal currently up for approval by our federal government.

This mega-mine, the biggest yet, will add an area twice the size of Vancouver to an already questionable tarsands industry and is undoubtedly incompatible with our climate targets.

Canadians are doing their part to cut back on emissions, but our efforts to eat less meat or use public transport pale in comparison to the harm that will be done by this proposed project.

We pray for Australia and send money to help burned koalas, we criticize others for cutting down the Amazon forest, depriving orangutans of their habitat, and we judge the U.S. for its climate-denying leadership.

But here in Canada, with scientists telling us we have less than 10 years to limit climate catastrophe, we are poised to eradicate more boreal forest and add more greenhouse gases to an already beleaguered atmosphere.

I saw former U.S. president Barack Obama on his recent visit to Toronto. He praised Canada for listening to the science. Have we stopped doing that?

Jennifer Dance, Stouffville

Despite the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Alberta over this development, which you can view with this link, in a sane world, there really would be no debate over this ill-conceived and very, very dangerous project.

Now Even American Networks Are Using The C-Words

Will wonders never cease?




For more analysis, watch this, from Global National. Start at the 11:30 mark:

Truly, Profoundly Disturbing

I have just finished reading a long article in National Geographic, one that, without any use of hyperbole, should disturb all of us deeply and profoundly. But thanks to our capacity to ignore anything that disturbs our worldview, the article's dire warning will likely provoke little concern and no alteration of our bloated, cossetted and unsustainable lifestyles.

The following video summarizes the situation well, but following it I am including some excerpts from the article, although I do recommend taking some time to read the entire piece carefully.



The problem, of course, is earth's warming temperatures, but those rising numbers are much greater in Antarctica, where the ice shelves that hold in the glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates:

Why should we care about Antarctica ice melt? Antarctica's ice shelves are disintegrating and the glaciers behind them are flowing faster into the ocean. This could spell disaster for coastal areas around the world, and scientists are in a race against time to understand how it's happening. Sea levels around the world could rise by 14 feet if all of the ice melted just on West Antarctica.

Large swaths of West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice these days. The warming has been the most dramatic on the Antarctic Peninsula, a spine of ice-cloaked mountains that reaches 700 miles up toward the tip of South America. Catching the powerful winds and ocean currents that swirl endlessly around Antarctica, the peninsula gets slammed with warm air and water from farther north. Average annual temperatures on its west side have risen nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1950—several times faster than the rest of the planet—and the winters have warmed an astonishing 9 degrees. Sea ice now forms only four months a year instead of seven.

The ice shelves, Fricker says, “are the canary in the coal mine.” Because they’re already floating, they don’t raise sea level themselves when they melt—but they signal that a rise is imminent, as the glaciers behind them accelerate. Fricker and her team have found that from 1994 to 2012, the amount of ice disappearing from all Antarctic ice shelves, not just the ones in the Amundsen Sea, increased 12-fold, from six cubic miles to 74 cubic miles per year. “I think it’s time for us scientists to stop being so cautious” about communicating the risks, she says.

The video, along with the above three excerpts, are merely the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Yet the signs are clear, ominous, and accelerating. I have little doubt that the predicted flooding cataclysms will occur much faster than mid-to-late century. Indeed, before my time is up, I fully expect the apocalypse to be well underway.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere A Sign

With apologies to the Five Man Electrical Band:





Would it be fair to say we are drowning in our excesses?

Just The Beginning

I think we all know that this story, and many others like it, will not end well.

A long-running rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew suddenly in December and now just 20km of ice is keeping the 5,000 sq km piece from floating away.

Larsen C is the most northern major ice shelf in Antarctica.

Says researcher Prof Adrian Luckman, from Swansea University,

"We would expect in the ensuing months to years further calving events, and maybe an eventual collapse - but it's a very hard thing to predict, and our models say it will be less stable; not that it will immediately collapse or anything like that."

As it floats on the sea, the resulting iceberg from the shelf will not raise sea levels. But if the shelf breaks up even more, it could result in glaciers that flow off the land behind it to speed up their passage towards the ocean. This non-floating ice would have an impact on sea levels.

According to estimates, if all the ice that the Larsen C shelf currently holds back entered the sea, global waters would rise by 10cm[emphasis added].